TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
IEEE P802.19
Wireless Coexistence
Sept 2010 TG1 Minutes
Date: 13th to 17th Sept. 2010
Author(s):
Name
Juny Wang
Company
NICT
Address
3-4 Hikarino-oka, Yokosuka,
239-0847, Japan
Phone
+81 46 847 5088
email
Junyi Wang@nict.go.jp
The document records the IEEE 802.19 TG1 minutes of 802 Wireless Interim Session in Big Island, HI,
USA during September 13-17, 2010
IEEE 802.19 TG1 Chair: Tuncer Baykas
IEEE 802.19 TG1 Vice Chair: Mika Kasslin
IEEE 802.19 TG1 Secretary: Junyi Wang
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.19. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the
contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after
further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, page
amend 1
or withdraw material contained herein.
Submission
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
MEETING MINUTES
First session of the meeting was called to order on Monday 13 Sept. 2010 at 10.35 AM.
APPROVE AGENDA
The Chairman opened the meeting and presented the agenda in Document 802.19-10-0122.
The agenda was approved by unanimous consensus. 10:37 AM
APPROVAL OF JULY MINUTES
IEEE 802.19-10/0120r0
The minutes were approved by unanimous consensus. 10 39 AM
IEEE IPR STATEMENT
The TG Chair informed the TAG about the IEEE patent policy and showed the set of 5 slides identified as “Highlights
of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards” available at the IEEE PATCOM web site
(http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt). He directed the secretary to record the fact that this
presentation was made in the minutes for the meeting.

10:40 AM - The WG Chair made a call for essential patterns: none made.
Main Body
Note: The italic indented text is copied directly from the presented documents.
Monday AM2
IEEE 802.19-10/0123r0 TG 1 Sept Meeting Opening Report
Presented by Tuncer Baykas
This document gives an outline of the work carried out since the last 802.19 plenary meeting.

Motion
To add reference model and system description related proposals with late notification of intent until September
12th and proposals with uploads/updates to be included in the official proposal list of the September meeting
proposals.
By Alex Reznik
Seconded by Mika Kasslin
YES 13, NO 0, Abstain: 1
Submission
page 2
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Motion passed.
Discussion on the motion
Mika Kasslin: How many proposals was late?
The chair indicated that Joe uploaded the proposal late while Stanislav Filin updated the proposal.
Padam Kafle suggested fixing the document number in the motion.
Ivan Reede was in favour of updating the proposal but did not support for late uploading. Alex Reznik was
opposed to it and claimed that someone may upload an empty proposal then updated it.
Joe Kwak clarified that, no matter when the proposal comes in, the group need to consider all
contributions if agenda time is available. The motion is not needed. Mika Kasslin amended that we should
treat all proposal the same. Paivi Ruuska agreed.
Steve Shellhammer clarified that there is no objection to present the contribution; procedurally we shall
have a motion to approve that.
Ivan Reede suggested to Joe Kwak bringing the proposal as contributions, and so it did not break any rule.
Joe Kwak opposed to it and expressed that if the group thinks motion is necessary, we can do it. He also
indicated again that it makes no sense if we do not consider the proposal just because it is late.
Padam Kafle questioned on the reason to have a deadline. Tuncer Baykas explained that if there is no
deadline, one may check the submitted contributions, and prepares a new proposal. The chair can also
see the possible agenda.
Ivan Reede called the question.

The TG Chair made a call for new technical contributions 11:10 AM
1.
Alex Reznik: device security overview 10/118r0
2.
Paivi Russka: Resource Allocation principle for802.19.1 system 10/128r0
3.
Ryo Sawai: Categorization of coexistence network 10/130r0
11:05 AM - Assign time slot for full and technical proposals. Document 10/122

Approval of agenda IEEE 802.19-10/0122
Strawpoll on the options on the agenda
Submission
page 3
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
1.
Have Thursday AM1 session and cancel PM2 session (YES 1)
2.
Have Thursday PM2 session and cancel AM1 session (YES 9)
3.
Start AM1 session from 9am and keep PM2 session (YES 2)
Time slot was assigned for each of full proposals and technical contributions
The TG closing report moves to Thursday PM1 performing together with WG closing report.

Motion to approve agenda with above modification Document 10/122
By Ivan Reede
Seconded by Junyi Wang
Motion passed.
Session Recessed 11:41 AM
Monday PM1
Meeting called to order 1:30 PM
The chair made an announcement that although IEEE template can be used in the proposals, everything like “draft
standard” and the “copyright” part shall be removed. The chair requests contributors to do so and upload their
proposals again.
IEEE 802.19-10/0127r0: Proposal on system description, reference model and draft outline
Presentation by Mika Kasslin, Nokia Research Center
This is a presentation of the System Description and Reference Model proposal for IEEE 802.19.1 draft standard
provided in document 19-10/0110r0.
Mika Kasslin clarified that in each network, from coexistence management point of view, it has only one interface,
there is only one CE connecting with 802.19 systems.
Joe Kwak suggested that one network has at least one CE. Mika Kasslin explained that from coexistence
management prospective, it is no reason to have multiple CEs in one network.
Alex Reznik gave an example in 802.11af where there may be several CEs in one network; Mika Kasslin agreed and
explained that they will not prevent this to happen. However he still believes there is not too much reason for
several CEs in one network.
Yongsun Kim questioned on the meaning of the term “ neighbours”? “Neighbour of TVBDs” Mika Kasslin answered.
Submission
page 4
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Ivan Reede: “network interfere each other” is not a good expression since interference level shall be calculated for
any transmitter inside the network to the receivers in any other network. Joe Kwak agreed.
Joe Kwak: why channel state is a vector? “Channel status parameter set for each channel of one frequency band”
Mika Kasslin answered.
Joe Kwak: Does channel state mean channel measurement. Mika Kasslin: Yes but it is not limited only in
measurement.
Joe Kwak: what is spectrum map?
Mika Kasslin: Map represents all information CM may sent to CE: spectrum usage within specific location.
Joe Kwak: what is coexistence value?
Mika Kasslin: Natural of the networks to show how long the resource is available, for example.
Padam Kafle: what is independent media?
Mika Kasslin:Basic transmission over any media.
Session recessed 3:10 PM
Monday PM2
Meeting called to order 3:30 PM
IEEE 802.19-10/111r2: Draft Wireless coexistence using a Geographic Electromagnetic Radiation Domain Control
System in the IEEE 802.19.1 Systems
Presented by Ivan Reede, AmeriSys Inc.
Interface E and G will be specified very clearly in the proposal.
The interface between TVWS enabler and CDIS is interface B4.
If two entities are not in one device, you do not have to specify the interface. The defined interface may be used if
two entities are separated.
The number of interference level in coexistence example is taken from really measurement in 802.11b and 802.11g
systems
Stanislav Filin indicated that there might be some confusion between interface and access point.
Submission
page 5
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Ivan Reede: Interface B shall be standardized; transport decision about this inner interface should be done in bit
level.
The session recessed at 5:15 PM
Tuesday AM2
Meeting called to order 10:35 AM
IEEE 802.19-10/115r1: System Description
Presented by Stanislav Filin, NICT
This is the powerpoint version of Document 10/114r1
Padam Kafle: what is information requested for coexistence? Stanislav Filin : Available channels
Ivan Reede: TVDB tells you incumbent priority right and channels (people you have to protect, not people you have
to coexistent), TVDB does not provide information to share the band?
Stanislav Filin : YES, TVBD provide list of available channels, no user information for coexistence.
IEEE 802.19-10/116r0: Reference Model
Presented by Stanislav Filin, NICT
Steve Shellhammer: What is media SAP and transport SAP, which one connect to which entity.
Stanislav Filin: Media SAP is for TVWS devices, Transport SAP is for transport service, it is the SAP between 802.19
entities and external entities (refer to the reference model of CE). It is better to draw the figure upside-down
It is questioned on the reason why there is only one SAP for CM or CDIS?
Stanislav Filin: CE has to communicate with TVWS device through Media SAP, we use transport SAP for
communication with both CDIS and CM.
Mika Kasslin: Why do you separate reference model into two entities not having only one reference model?
Stanislav Filin: We have different entities, so we should have different reference model.
IEEE 802.19-10/125r0: Coexistence Transport SAP Description
Presented by Junyi Wang, NICT
Ivan Reede: Why do you define “confirm” primitive, in TCP they have already had ACK definition.
Submission
page 6
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Junyi Wang: The TCP ACK is from one TCP port to another TCP port, while the “confirm” primitive is an
acknowledge from a TCP port to the port of a 802.19 system entity. The “confirm” primitive is to confirm whether
a PDU is successfully delivered or not, it is not the confirm whether the PDU is received.
Prabodh Varshney: It is better to upload the backup pages as revision 1. Junyi Wang agreed.
Joe Kwak: Why do we need to define the primitive for interface B1, B2, B3 and C, we just need to define the
message over these interface. The protocol is defined in application layer; the message shall be transmitted as a
PDU of this message.
Junyi Wang: It is true; we will define protocols in November.
IEEE 802.19-10/125r0: Coexistence Media Service Access Point
Presented by Ha Nguyen Tran, NICT
Hyunduk Kang: Can the predefined events be modified during operation?
Ha Nguyen Tran: No, it cannot. But you can extend the event set to add new events.
Ha Nguyen Tran: By using sharing primitive and provision primitive, you can share information with neighbours.
There shall be an address to indicate who you are going to share the information.
It is questioned on what information is in the CDIS database. Ha Nguyen Tran explained that it has information
about the address of CM and CE.
It is questioned on where to do measurement?
It is explained that the TVWS devices do the measurement and report to CM through CE.
IEEE 802.19-10/124r0: Data types and information elements
Presented by Chen Sun, NICT
It is commented that the proposal defines details which may be changed with other standard. Chen Sun explained
that the information inside the structure may be changed with other standardized system, while the defined
structures will not change, they can be put in the draft.
Ivan Reede: The information you show here may be difficult for 802.22.
Chen Sun: We may negotiate with 802.22.
Paivi Ruuska: It is a great work, we really concern whether this is able to be standardized, and it could be achieved
in the annex as an example.
Chen Sun: The data type would be in normative text, the details are to be discussed.
Submission
page 7
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Mika Kasslin: Which service will be used for information delivering to TVBD?
Chen Sun: Information sharing or reconfiguration services.
Session recessed 12:33 PM
Tuesday PM2
Meeting opened 4:05 PM
IEEE 802.19-10/124r0: IEEE 802.19.1 System description
Presented by Junho Jo, from LGE
Paivi Ruuska: CDIS is playing as a coexistence management, what are CM functions?
Junho Jo: CM gets information from CDIS and may also make decision.
Joe Kwak: What is the function of master CM, why do you need master CM?
Junho Jo: We are suggesting a centralized system.
Ivan Reede: The master CM is similar with Pass-through protocol in my protocol; this is to provide smart way in
the future, for example to shut down CM.
There were some discussions on ASN.1
Mika Kasslin: it is beneficial to use ASN.1 to present the data type.
Joe Kwak: ASN.1 has some limitations and I prefer TLB.
Mika Kasslin: We need a presentation to make difference from each other. TLB is equal to ASN.1 if you want to do
so. ASN.1 does not do encoding, it stands for the TLB.
Joe Kwak: ASN.1 is very old, RDF is a good choice.
Ivan Reede: It is very useful to use ASN.1, but we are lack of knowledge.
Alex Reznik suggested having a presentation to introduce ASN.1. Mika Kasslin: agreed to prepare for it.
Steve Shellhammer asked Joe Kwak to prepare something for RDF, Joe Kwak agreed.
The chair will arrange two presentations in November meeting: one from Joe Kwak for RDF, one from Mika Kasslin
for ASN.1.
4: 30 PM -A discussion about protocol was initialled by the WG chair.
Steve Shellhammer: How many details do we need to describe SAP including internal and external ones?
Steve Shellhammer: Do you ever write a SAP for something to connect with something physically externally or it
only provide internal between entities within the same physical device.
Submission
page 8
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Joe Kwak: NICT’s SAP proposal is completing the general proposals, while it is more efficient to define a protocol
for each interface rather than primitive definitions for a SAP.
Mika Kasslin: We support NICT proposal. We have the same SAP proposal, which is also quite similar with other
proposals.
Stanislav Filin: All SAPs are internal. Transport SAP is generic definition on how one application is able to
communication to the other applications.
Stanislav Filin: In application layer, All SAPs are exposed and testable.
Joe Kwak: We are basically proposing two SAPs. One is transport SAP, which is media independent; we should
focus on message definition for this SAP. And another SAP has no external transport element, which is media
dependent on other system, such as .11, .22. and .16. etc. We may provide a generic description for this SAP and
map the details to each system or we can specify them just in generic level and provide example in the annex for
particular implementations. We should avoid changing our draft when other standard changes.
The SAP is a communication point between layers. It is internal interface.
Steve Shellhammer: Translation into another SAP is not specified in other system.
Stanislav Filin: we have one SAP for interface A, in genetic format, we need to define many primitives, for other
interface, we need to define protocol and message. He asked for a strawpoll.

Strawpoll:
Do you agree that 802.19.1 model should have two service access points? First one between Coexistence Enabler
and a TVBD, second one between an 802.19.1 entity and a layer providing transport services.
YES:
NO: Abstain:
The strawpoll is postponed until all presentations are heard.
Discussion on the strawpoll:
Ivan Reede: What is the SAP between CE and a network? A device is always talking to a device not a network.
Stanislav Filin: It is ok to remove the network.
Stanislav Filin: The first SAP is between CE and TVBD, and the second one is between 802.19 entities.
Ivan Reede requests the explanation of the question.
Submission
page 9
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Steve Shellhammer: Do you believe there are two SAPs, one is between CE and TVBD, and one is between all the
other entities.
Stanislav Filin: I do not want to put a name for each SAP but try to name them in a generic format since in each
proposal, they have different names.
Steve Shellhammer: The transport SAP is very generic, it transmits and receives message. The actual protocol is
different for different entities, but they are using the same generic SAP to capture information.
Ivan Reede: The CE may also have transport SAP. Steve Shellhammer: It is true.
Ivan Reede: we want our staff which does not depends on regulations.
It is commented that we shall clarify that SAP is within the same entities
Alex Reznik presented his reference model, and suggested using his reference model figure in the strawpoll.
Stanislav Filin objected to make a strawpoll based on a particular contribution on this point of time.
Ivan Reede suggested using “at least two service access points”
Stanislav Filin: The second SAP (Transport SAP) is definitely within the same device.
It is suggested postponing this strawpoll.

Motion
To change agenda Document 10/122 to use the remained time for Alex’ presentation 10/118r0 in
By Ivan Reede
Seconded by Alex Reznik
Motion passed with unanimous consensus.
IEEE 802.19-10/118r0: Device security overview
Presented by Alex Reznik, InterDigital
Ivan Reede indicated that FCC regulation required all TVBD shall be trusted.
Joe Kwak : Do you know there is any consensus to use this?
Alex Reznik: UICC has.
Ivan Reede indicated that 802.22 uses some compromised algorithm for device security.
Submission
page 10
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Steve Shellhammer: if 802.11 and 80.22 do it, we may mind it.
Alex Reznik: we should not verity only in 80.11 and 802.22.
Session recessed 6:03 PM
Wednesday AM2
Called to order 10:35 AM
IEEE 802.19-10/131r0: Reference Use Cases
Presented by Hyunduk Kang, ETRI
This is powerpoint version of full proposal in Document 113r1.
Joe Kwak: Geolocation information is more important, we do not have to differential the sharing or non –sharing.
The term sharing is misleading, interfered or non-interfered would be better terms.
Mika Kasslin: It may be possible that they may select the same default channels.
Steve Shellhammer: if the device has directional feature, they may coexistent.
Stanislav Filin: What does the term “sharing” mean? We have “Sharing mechanism” which describes how to
allocate resource, while it should not be used to describe channel.
Steve Shellhammer: how to manage channel is a good discussion topic
IEEE 802.19-10/132r0: 802.19.1 Logical Entities
Presented by Hyunduk Kang, ETRI.
Ivan Reede: There are two types of coexistence, they may not sharing channel but they can survival on the loss of
their throughput (survival model), another is to negotiate together to avoid interference (organized sharing), which
model are you assuming. Kang: Survival model. The organized sharing is not decided yet.
Mika Kasslin: “Share channel” is the better term than “Coexistent channel” and so as follows Disallow ->
unavailable; Allowed-> available for consistence.
Joe Kwak: Protection channel is defined by FCC, it is for the incumbent protection.
Submission
page 11
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Mika Kasslin: If a device senses the signal on a channel, the channel becomes protection channel
Joe Kwak: There is no fixed set of channels; it changes with respect to location and environment. It is confusing to
say channel is available or unavailable.
Hyunduk Kang: We need to know that at a given location, where the white space is. If we know the channel
status, we may adopt different mechanism for coexistence solution.
Yohannes Demessie: Protection channel is impossible to be maintained by 802.19 systems. It is good to solve the
problem when licence microphone uses some channel.
Ivan Reede: discovering other CM is the function of CDIS.
Mika Kasslin: We do not mandate the CM to use any service.
IEEE 802.19-10/133r0: 802.19.1 interfaces
Presented by Hyunduk Kang, ETRI.
Yohannes Demessie: why do you have “waiting engagement ” in CE but not in CM .
Hyunduk Kang: In centralized mode, only slave CM connects with master CM.
Alex Reznik: When does a CM become master CM?
Hyunduk Kang: When a CM is going to control the other CMs
Alex Reznik: Can master and slave CM relation be updated.
Hyunduk Kang: It can be changed at different locations.
IEEE 802.19-10/134r0: 802.19.1 reference model
Presented by Hyunduk Kang, ETRI.
IEEE 802.19-10/135r0: 802.19.1 CX_DME_SAP Primitives
Presented by Kyu-Min Kang, ETRI
Prabodh Varshney: There is no statement in FCC rule that TVWS devices is not allowed moving. As long as you
match the regulation, you can move.
Mika Kasslin: With which primitive a CE can get information for required resource.
Kyu-Min Kang: “coexistence map”
Submission
page 12
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
IEEE 802.19-10/136r0: CX_NET_SAP Primitives
Presented by Hyunduk Kang, ETRI.
Session recessed 0:23 PM
Wednesday PM2
Called to order 4:05 PM
IEEE 802.19-10/117r1: System description and reference model proposal
Presented by Joe Kwak, InterDigital Communications, LLC.
Mika Kasslin: Can this be realized in the devices who is not connected with internet?
Joe Kwak: For the discovery function, you have to have DNS.
Mika Kasslin: you should allow other kind of network.
Joe Kwak: This is allowed.
It is questioned on the meaning of the term “Attachment”.
Joe Kwak explained that it can be understood as the first point to connect with other network.
TVBD-C, TVBD-M and Cserv are actual realization of architecture inside devices; they can also be separated in
different devices.
Stanislav Filin: There should be a system manage entity between CSS and PHY/MAC parts.
Joe Kwak: We need to map the link_SAP to the real SAP in the system, for example, in 802.11, it would be MLME
SAP. In P802.22, we need to have convergence sub-layer to MAP link_SAP .
Ivan Reede: MLME may not be exposed; we need to descript a generic one. Joe Kwak agreed.
Stanislav Filin: What is media access function?
Joe Kwak: for example, frequency selection.
Naotaka Sato: TVBD-C, TVBD-M and Cserv look like implementation example, it should not be in normative text.
Ivan Reede: Is a reference point a SAP? Joe Kwak: YES, it can be
Joe Kwak: We do not care about the protocol to exchange the message.
Submission
page 13
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Joe Kwak: interface C is missing between MICM and TVWS database in Figure 7.
Hyunduk Kang: Do we need to change draft when other standard change.
Joe Kwak: No, we do not need, the only thing we may change would be just in annex.
Ivan Reede: We may even have no such annex.
Joe Kwak: we may need some information to clarify what are missing in other system.
Hyunduk Kang: Can TVWS device take advantage of coexistence information. How can they make modification to
support 19 standards?
Joe Kwak: Then they cannot use it. That is why we are looking at what they already have.
Session recessed 6:02 PM
Thursday AM1
Called to order 8:06 PM

Motion
To change agenda in Document 10/122
By Ivan Reede
Seconded by Alex Reznik
Motion passed with unanimous consensus.
IEEE 802.22-10/121r2: 802.22 Coexistence Aspect
Presented by Gerald Chouinard, Communication Research centre, Canada
Steve Shellhammer: BSs are synchronized?
Gerald Chouinard : YES
It is clarified that the minimum frame length is 3ms.
What happens if the traffic load is not 100%? Frame will be shortened.
The downlink transmission delay is absorbed by TTG in PHY layer if the BS is located in up to 30km.
For the downlink, the data is schedule in advance and arranged vertically in order to abort the transmission delay if
BS is located from 30km -100km.
For the uplink, the data is arranged horizontally to use less subcarrier so that each subcarrier has more
transmission power
Submission
page 14
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Except Mode II devices, all devices shall connect to database without intermediate.
Joe Kwak questioned on the coordination of quiet period using command service of 802.19.1
IEEE 802.22-10/128r0: Resource allocation principles for 802.19.1 coexistence system
By Paivi Ruuska, Nokia Corporation
Hyunduk Kang: What is definition of fairness? It is difficult to define. Coexistence value is one of solution.
There may be some neighbours in different networks, you may not schedule them in the same time.
Joe Kwak: Two ways to solve resource contention issue, (1) general approach, solve the problem over entire set (2)
to only fix the problem network, which is more feasible.
Reinhard Gloger: What is the reaction time? Mika Kasslin: several minutes.
Session recessed 10:07 PM
Thursday AM2
Called to order 10:37 PM
IEEE 802.22-10/130r0: Categorization of coexistence network configuration
By Ryo Sawai, Sony corporation
Paivi Ruuska: who is doing this coverage estimation?
Ryo Sawai: 802.19 coexistence system.
It is clarified that slide 9 is not the case of coexistence, but this is one of category. During discovery, device in two
networks may use the same channel.
Ivan Reede: Two networks may not communicate but they may interference each other, there should be a big
circle showing interference range
Ivan Reede: In slide 20, the small coverage network may only connect with larger coverage network by using
backhaul
It is indicated that the case 1 and case 4 may be the same.
Submission
page 15
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Ryo Sawai: the coexistence solution may be different for these two cases.

Motion
To remove from draft development process “After all presentations of a given clause, a straw poll is taken in the
task group on all the proposals to facilitate merging of the proposals.”
By Alex Reznik
Seconded by Mika Kasslin
Motion passed.

Motion
To change agenda 10/122 to remove the time slot for strawpoll
By Alex Reznik
Seconded by Mika Kasslin
Motion passed.

The postponed strawpoll on Tuesday PM2 was withdrawn by Stanislav Filin
There were some discussions on how we should consider these 6 proposals?
It is suggested by Steve Shellhammer to compare the 6 proposals, and find the similarity/difference.
Mika Kasslin suggested that we do not discuss here, the authors of each proposal will discuss offline before
November meeting.
Steve Shellhammer asked the group whether we discuss proposal now or let authors find consensus by themselves.
TG Chair called for the questions on any of proposals
Joe Kwak: by November, will proposers have complete proposal
Stanislav Filin: I planned by November.
Mika Kasslin: We are late and I do not expect others may have complete proposal. By November we may have
general messages. And In January we may have details.
It is announced that In January, we will have technical editor.
Steve Shellhammer: It may proposed message and their description in PowerPoint vision without document text.
Ivan Reede: It should be full text. Steven Shellhammer agreed finally.
Submission
page 16
Junyi Wang, NICT
TG1 Sept. 2010
IEEE P802.19-10-0139-00-0001
Stanislav Filin: it is good to have parameters in the messages to help understand what is behind messages.
Mika Kasslin: General parameters may be proposed, we cannot list everything.
Ivan Reede: Before we process, we may focus on the clarification of current drafts.
Alex Reznik: It is better to unify the description language.
TG chair: it is hard to merge proposals at this time. We can work on this from January.

Strawpoll :
Would you like to have conference call in order to promote convergence?
Yes 13/ No 0/ Abstain: 3

Strawpoll :
Would you like to process to a review to a closing report and adjourn the task?
Yes : 13 No: 0 Abstain: 0
Session recessed 11:57
Thursday AM2
Called to order 1:35 PM
IEEE 802.22-10/137r0:TG1 September Closing Report
By Tuncer Baykas, NICT

Motion
To adjourn the TG meeting
By Alex Reznik
Seconded by Mika Kasslin
Motion passed.
TG meeting adjourned 1:38 PM.
Submission
page 17
Junyi Wang, NICT